My thoughts on Computer Chess, Clones, and Life

[Sarciness]

When it comes to chess, my number 1 interest is in over-the-board chess played by humans. Primarily, I am interested in computer chess becasue it helps give ideas for people to play chess.

I started out with SegaChess on the Master System, which eventually I could beat. Then I bought a standalone chess computer for around 15 weeks of pocket money when I was about 10. Eventually I could beat that on all levels that took less than 4 minutes per move (snore!) Then came Chessmaster 5000. Now that thing could play! It destroyed me! It claimed to be able to beat 99% of chess players. I believe this was an understatement. Round about this time, Kasparov had just lost to Deep Blue, but I read and wanted to believe that the top people were improving at around the same rate as the top computers. I was young and, well, wrong!

So here we are! I now have a powerful computer in my own home which can beat the best grandmasters with ease! I would estimate that it is around 1,400 elo stronger than me (estimating my strength at around 1,800). Playing against the computer on full-strength is simply a mismatch! However, I continued to use the game analysis on Chessmaster (now version 9000), and was given Fritz 10 by a guy from the chess club who couldn't use it becasue he was still running Windows 95! I never did like Fritz as it suggested weird moves when going through my games.

Then a few years back I got Rybka. I found this produced far, far more intuitive variations and sugestions. From there I found the Rybka Forum and a world of other engines! The biggest reason for me to join the forum was the input of the developers Vasik Rajlich, and even more so, Larry Kaufman.

These days I only use free engines and Rybka 3. R3 is slightly poor in multi-variation mode, which is my preferred way of searching for ideas, so I've recently got into Stockfish (which I think runs better on my laptop than R3, possibly due to hyper-threading). However, its tendency to jump around in terms of evaluation lead me to also use Komodo- which I want to support and will eventually buy a multi-variation version on the sole basis of Larry's contribution to my own enjoyment of computer chess. Recently, I have also picked up Critter, and this is my current favourite. For me, Rybka 4 is severely overpriced and I do not intend to buy it becasue no reduction in price is offered, despite me paying over £50 for "Deep" Rybka 3- more than twice what I'd payed for any other piece of computer software other than Windows!

I have very little programming knowledge. I did once make a program in 'C' which understands what chess moves are legal based on keyboard input- but it had no GUI and no ability for the computer to analyse or choose its own moves. One day I want to make a computer that plays and thinks like a human- but this is just a pipe dream as I have neither the programming prowess nor the the time for this project. So I base my decision on which engines are legitimate and which aren't on my own common sense. My thinking is that it would be very difficult or impossible to create an engine which surpasses all others in just a few months. Also, calling yourself comrades and then failing to come up with any major improvements since implies to me that these engines are not genuine. In my opinion is is morally wrong to reverse-engineer else's work and then offer it to the world.

Houdini is another matter and I am still undecided as to how legitimate it is. Anyway, I must run, but that will do for my first post! Long live Rybka, Stockfish, Komodo, Critter and others! Computer chess has never been better!

[fern]

My dear Ishan, not even dream in making a chess program. Too late. The field is already saturated. Better to engage in things you handle naturally. I do not know you, but surely you are a smart guy and have talents for something specific. I am 61 years old so I have learned long ago that time runs very fast and so you must at once engage in your stuff. The rest can be treated, but just as fun. Reading and listening great music _Mozart kind of- and paying chess are great, but never lose the focus in your more special ability.
I still regret the many years I lost in a scholarly path forgetting my real skill, which es writing. Now I am on it, but those unfruitful years lost I will never recover.
a hug
Fern

[poisonedpawn]

fernando...nice little chess board. where did you get it?

[zullil]

I have very little programming knowledge. I did once make a program in 'C' which understands what chess moves are legal based on keyboard input- but it had no GUI and no ability for the computer to analyse or choose its own moves. One day I want to make a computer that plays and thinks like a human- but this is just a pipe dream as I have neither the programming prowess nor the the time for this project.

I have little free time, and am at best a pedestrian programmer. But I'd always wanted to write a program that plays legal chess. So this summer I took several weeks and did just that! My program plays slowly and rather badly, but it's a fine opponent for my children and was great fun to create (and I wrote every line). Perhaps I will return to it again and improve it.

My point: Go for it! You don't need to make a monster with a rating of 4000!

[fern]

Oh that...well, many years ago in Paris, probably in 1989. I have a nicer one I got in the shop of our sponsors, but it is bigger and so i have no real state enough for it in my desk.

Fern

[Sarciness]

Don't worry, I'm not thinking about being a computer programmer, even as a hobby. I have too many other hobbies to think of that! I am about to begin a new career as a teacher (who, I might add, do make a contribution to society). If you want to be a writer though, why not do it? 61 is not too old!

[fern]

Sir, I did it long ago. I have published 12 books to date....My point is: I should have started even before....

Fern

[MikeB]

I have very little programming knowledge. I did once make a program in 'C' which understands what chess moves are legal based on keyboard input- but it had no GUI and no ability for the computer to analyse or choose its own moves. One day I want to make a computer that plays and thinks like a human- but this is just a pipe dream as I have neither the programming prowess nor the the time for this project.

I have little free time, and am at best a pedestrian programmer. But I'd always wanted to write a program that plays legal chess. So this summer I took several weeks and did just that! My program plays slowly and rather badly, but it's a fine opponent for my children and was great fun to create (and I wrote every line). Perhaps I will return to it again and improve it.

My point: Go for it! You don't need to make a monster with a rating of 4000!

on your box ( based on your crafty nps that I have seen) - any chess program s/b formidable !

[Michael Sherwin]

Oh that...well, many years ago in Paris, probably in 1989. I have a nicer one I got in the shop of our sponsors, but it is bigger and so i have no real state enough for it in my desk.

Fern

It looks exactly like the board that I had once. In the area between the squares and the frame is an inlaid design of Spanish origin. The pieces that came with it were of standard Staunton design except for the knight which was a bulls head complete with horns! Unfortunately the board surface was only a thin laminate that chipped easily around the edges. Perfect size for on the desk though.

[zullil]

I have little free time, and am at best a pedestrian programmer. But I'd always wanted to write a program that plays legal chess. So this summer I took several weeks and did just that! My program plays slowly and rather badly, but it's a fine opponent for my children and was great fun to create (and I wrote every line). Perhaps I will return to it again and improve it.

My point: Go for it! You don't need to make a monster with a rating of 4000!

on your box ( based on your crafty nps that I have seen) - any chess program s/b formidable !

Well, I haven't figured out parallel searching yet.
(And I use a 12x12 array for my board, and no bitboards, no transposition table, evaluation is little more than totaling piece values ...)

By the way, if you are in Pen Argyl then we're practically neighbors; I'm in Easton.